I closed this question, Justifying the Four Noble Truths without rebirth, as a duplicate of an earlier question about suicide -- because it asked why secular Buddhists follow the 4NT instead of suicide.

The OP thinks it should be reopened, because it's a reasonable question even with the bit about suicide excluded.

But I don't think it makes sense, as a question, if it isn't about suicide.

What do you think? Can you edit the question so that it makes sense, asks a valid question, and doesn't ask about suicide?

1 Answer 1


I'm saying that there's a doctrinal and logical conflict between "no rebirth" and "ending of suffering is ONLY by ending of craving", because "no rebirth" implies that suffering can be ended by death (natural or otherwise).

Perhaps the other ways to ask this question is - "can suffering be ended by death?" OR "must suffering be ended only by ending craving, or can it be ended by death?"

If suffering cannot be ended by death, then rebirth must be true.

  • I share your question and conclusion. Also, leaving "secular buddhism" out of it and asking "can suffering be ended by death?" is a better formulation of the question.
    – user13375
    Commented May 13, 2018 at 18:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .